You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Brief report
Comparing ICD-10 external cause codes for pedal cyclists with self-reported crash details
  1. Ben Beck1,
  2. Christina L Ekegren1,
  3. Peter Cameron1,2,
  4. Mark Stevenson3,
  5. Rodney Judson4,5,
  6. Andrew Bucknill5,6,
  7. Elton Edwards1,7,
  8. Belinda Gabbe1,8
  1. 1 Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Melbourne School of Design/Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Department of General Surgery, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  7. 7 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Alfred, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  8. 8 Farr Institute, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ben Beck, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; ben.beck{at}monash.edu

Abstract

Accurate coding of injury event information is critical in developing targeted injury prevention strategies. However, little is known about the validity of the most universally used coding system, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), in characterising crash counterparts in pedal cycling events. This study aimed to determine the agreement between hospital-coded ICD-10-AM (Australian modification) external cause codes with self-reported crash characteristics in a sample of pedal cyclists admitted to hospital following bicycle crashes. Interview responses from 141 injured cyclists were mapped to a single ICD-10-AM external cause code for comparison with ICD-10-AM external cause codes from hospital administrative data. The percentage of agreement was 77.3% with a κ value of 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.77), indicating substantial agreement. Nevertheless, studies reliant on ICD-10 codes from administrative data should consider the 23% level of disagreement when characterising crash counterparts in cycling crashes.

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042206

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Ben Beck @DrBenBeck

    • Contributors BB, CLE, PC, MS, RJ, AB, EE and BG contributed to the planning of the study. BB, CLE and BG contributed to the analysis. BB drafted the manuscript and CLE, PC, MS, RJ, AB, EE and BG provided critical review. BB and BG are responsible for the overall content.

    • Funding The cycling study from which the interview responses were derived was specifically supported by a Monash University, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Strategic Grant. The Safer Cycling in the Urban Road Environment Study15 is supported by an Australian Research Council Grant (number: LP130100380). The Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry is funded by the Transport Accident Commission via the Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research. BB received salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australian Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Centre of Research Excellence (#1029983). CLE is supported by a NHMRC of Australia Early Career Fellowship (GNT1106633). PC, BG and MS were supported by a Practitioner Fellowship (#545926), Career Development Fellowship (GNT1048731) and a Research Fellowship (#1043091) from the NHMRC, respectively.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval Human Research Ethics Committees at The Alfred Hospital and Royal Melbourne Hospital, and the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.